When the USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) puts to sea later this year, it will be different from any other ship in the Navy's fleet in many ways. The $3.5 billon ship is designed for stealth, survivability, and firepower, and it's packed with advanced technology. And at the heart of its operations is a virtual data center powered by off-the-shelf server hardware, various flavors of Linux, and over 6 million lines of software code.

On October 10, I flew up to Rhode Island to visit Raytheon's Seapower Capability Center in Portsmouth, where engineers assembled and pre-tested the systems at the heart of the Zumwalt and are preparing to do the same for the next ship in line, the USS Michael Monsoor—already well into construction. There, Raytheon's DDG-1000 team gave me a tour of the centerpiece of the ship's systems—a mockup of the Zumwalt's operations center, where the ship's commanding officer and crew will control the ship's sensors, missile launchers, guns, and other systems.

Over 20 years ago, I learned how to be a ship watch stander a few miles from the Raytheon facility at the Navy's Surface Warfare Officer School. But the operations center of the Zumwalt will have more in common with the fictional starship USS Enterprise's bridge than it does with the combat information centers of the ships I went to sea on. Every console on the Zumwalt will be equipped with touch screens and software capable of taking on the needs of any operator on duty, and big screens on the forward bulkhead will display tactical plots of sea, air, and land.

Perhaps it's appropriate that the first commanding officer of the Zumwalt will be Captain James Kirk (yes, that's actually his name). But considering how heavily the ship leans on its computer networks, maybe they should look for a chief engineer named Vint Cerf.

at the heart of its operations is a virtual data center powered by off-the-shelf server hardware, various flavors of Linux

Interesting that they chose 'various' flavors. Consolidating to a single flavor would seem to reduce administrative overhead._________________You're jumping to conclusions, so I can't keep up with you. Go on without me, I'll just slow you down.

at the heart of its operations is a virtual data center powered by off-the-shelf server hardware, various flavors of Linux

Interesting that they chose 'various' flavors. Consolidating to a single flavor would seem to reduce administrative overhead.

Redudancy I guess. It's more important that stuff works than it is to be easy.

I wouldn't say redundancy since multiple instances would provide redundancy, multiple flavours (worked and managed by different teams) would provide difference to minimise common failure points that would mitigate all these layers._________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

at the heart of its operations is a virtual data center powered by off-the-shelf server hardware, various flavors of Linux

Interesting that they chose 'various' flavors. Consolidating to a single flavor would seem to reduce administrative overhead.

Redudancy I guess. It's more important that stuff works than it is to be easy.

I wouldn't say redundancy since multiple instances would provide redundancy, multiple flavours (worked and managed by different teams) would provide difference to minimise common failure points that would mitigate all these layers.

Well then don't say that if thats not what you would say. What seems to be the problem? _________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

at the heart of its operations is a virtual data center powered by off-the-shelf server hardware, various flavors of Linux

Interesting that they chose 'various' flavors. Consolidating to a single flavor would seem to reduce administrative overhead.

Redudancy I guess. It's more important that stuff works than it is to be easy.

I wouldn't say redundancy since multiple instances would provide redundancy, multiple flavours (worked and managed by different teams) would provide difference to minimise common failure points that would mitigate all these layers.

Well then don't say that if thats not what you would say. What seems to be the problem?

wat? you said redundancy, I was pointing out the reason to use different flavours was more than likely not for redundancy._________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

I see them using a specific flavours and using them to their strengths.

I see them using Red Hat for their on-board servers and virtualisation, Gentoo for when sources need to be compiled and patches need to be added (and tested), Ubuntu for their desktops and Debian for their system-wide installs.

All interoperable and degrees of separation._________________"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt